The Tories’ message on social housing is that the state is for losers

First topic message reminder :

Subsidised homes are being rebranded as not for decent people. This will set neighbour against neighbour

High earners will no longer be eligible for “subsidised” social housing, and will instead have to pay “market rates”, the chancellor has announced. George Osborne speaks directly to the nation from the pages of the Sun on Sunday in a column that doesn’t actually use the words “clampdown” or “crackdown”, but those are the terms that crop up in all the reports, so we can assume a briefing note somewhere, in which the jargon of tackling crime is deployed to describe people who have the brass neck to rent social housing and have jobs.

This is the first strand of the narrative: that social housing is for the vulnerable, and anybody not vulnerable has no business with it. It follows that aspirational people, hard-working families, strivers – real people – wouldn’t ever want to be socially housed, because they would know it wasn’t intended for them.

The language is all about support (“In times of economic hardship it is more important than ever that social housing helps the most vulnerable in society,” began the consultation paper in 2012), but the underpinning principle is that the state has no business being a provider of ordinary, decent housing to ordinary, decent people. It should instead be thought of as the houser of last resort.

That’s a pretty standard Thatcherite line, but there’s more: what counts as “high income” is a household wage of £40,000 (in London) or £30,000 (elsewhere). The Joseph Rowntree Foundation last week released their minimum income standard figures for 2015: the MIS is reached in a citizen’s jury style: a sequence of small groups are asked to figure out the least a person would need to live an acceptable life. It’s not intended as a poverty threshold, and it’s not as basic as food, clothes and shelter (it includes the category, “social and cultural participation”), but there’s also no frivolity on it.

The most recent calculation was that a couple with two children would need to be earning £20,024 each in order to reach the minimum. In other words, what Osborne calls a high-earning household is actually, in London, one that is only just managing to get by – and outside London, £10,000 per annum shy of an acceptable life. This is a pretty extraordinary manoeuvre, an apparently serious attempt to persuade the nation that a little money is actually a lot of money.

A rather pompous idea in the consultation document is that servicemen and women should take priority on social housing lists; but anybody above the rank of level-three private would, if married to someone on the same salary, immediately be “clamped down upon” and required to pay “market rent”.

The third element of Osborne’s story is this “market” of his: social housing is subsidised, while the price of private rental stock is the true price, the natural one, reached by the irresistible logic of the market. Of course, social housing is only subsidised in the cost of its creation: it then pays for itself in two or three decades of rents. It only looks cheap in comparison with private rents, which themselves aren’t arrived at by market imperatives at all, but are the result of three decades of governments subsidising landlords with housing benefit.

The chancellor’s tableaux, in which high-earning chancers, who shouldn’t be in social housing in the first place, must have their rents brought into line with the private rents around them – otherwise, and this is the best bit, it is not fair on those hardworking private tenants – is wrong, in all the usual, useful ways. The message is to forget the state (unless you are a loser); resent your neighbour (he is probably a high earner masquerading as a low earner, to get that social flat you’re subsidising with your taxes); and trust the market (where prices are created elegantly, neutrally, perfectly, like physics).

Like so many of these measures – the closure of the independent living fund, even the bedroom tax – I sincerely doubt that this will save the money they claim it will, and sometimes doubt that it will save any money at all. Rather, it’s about changing the atmosphere, the commonly held assumptions: life is hard and you’re on your own.

I spent the entire coalition complaining about things on practical and/or human terms: whatever they say they’ll save, they won’t, and this hits the wrong people, and that is inhumane, and what are we punishing disabled people for anyway, and how much is this parsimony going to cost when it explodes down the line? All of that served, by some strange jiu jitsu, to reinforce the Conservatives’ opening proposition, that the country had been mired in a project of human kindness for far too long, which the state could no longer afford.

So while it is useful to critique the bones of this plan, in the way a crossword is useful to pass the time, the vital bit is to refute the underlying principles: the state isn’t over; your neighbour isn’t a crook; the market isn’t magic; life doesn’t have to be hard; we’re not on our own.

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/jul/05/tories-social-tenant-council-housing

Fuck Osborne, Fuck Cameron, Fuck all of the over indulged, vile cretins that 24% voted for. I expect Osborne spends more than that for the cocaine he stuffs up his nose.

Tommy Monk wrote:

Irn Bru wrote:

A flat is a flat wherever it is Raggs. They're just not that good if you are bringing up children.

Plenty of working people with children as well as unemployed with children live in flats!!!



Are you saying that all people with children in flats should be immediatly moved into houses...!!!???



What about people with children who live on boats...!?


Then also what about maisonettes without direct gardens...!?


...farms, caravans etc...!?

Exactly.

People want everything - house with nice new carpets, all mod cons, nice big garden, someone to do the gardening for them. If they want those things, they should pay for them, and if they can't afford it, they shouldn't have them.

Don't make me laugh, talk about you can't see the wood for the trees. You go on talking about what people should have while this government dismantles everything that makes this a decent country.

Raggamuffin wrote:

Tommy Monk wrote:


Plenty of working people with children as well as unemployed with children live in flats!!!



Are you saying that all people with children in flats should be immediatly moved into houses...!!!???



What about people with children who live on boats...!?


Then also what about maisonettes without direct gardens...!?


...farms, caravans etc...!?

Exactly.

People want everything - house with nice new carpets, all mod cons, nice big garden, someone to do the gardening for them. If they want those things, they should pay for them, and if they can't afford it, they shouldn't have them.

You mean like the severely disabled that they have taken the ILF away from, so they can't pay for carers and will have to go back into institutions, no matter how young they are or the fact with the help they were working and won't be able to.

sassy wrote:Don't make me laugh, talk about you can't see the wood for the trees.   You go on talking about what people should have while this government dismantles everything that makes this a decent country.

People are free to choose what their priorities are. I don't hold with all this nannying.

sassy wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

Exactly.

People want everything - house with nice new carpets, all mod cons, nice big garden, someone to do the gardening for them. If they want those things, they should pay for them, and if they can't afford it, they shouldn't have them.

You mean like the severely disabled that they have taken the ILF away from, so they can't pay for carers and will have to go back into institutions, no matter how young they are or the fact with the help they were working and won't be able to.

That's quite a leap from talking about renting in Colchester ...

It's making things more equal sassy... all working families above a certain earnings level will have to pay similar housing costs!!!


Why should one working family have their rent subsidised by another one...?


Why should one working family be better off than another exactly the same make up and earnings through tax payer funded lower rents...!?

Codswallop, if it was making things equal the wankers and bankers would be paying more tax.

Raggamuffin wrote:

sassy wrote:

You mean like the severely disabled that they have taken the ILF away from, so they can't pay for carers and will have to go back into institutions, no matter how young they are or the fact with the help they were working and won't be able to.

That's quite a leap from talking about renting in Colchester ...

It's not a leap at all, it's the whole picture that has emerged since the election, and will be emerging more on Wednesday, of how they want to take from the poor to feed the rich. You just watch on Wednesday.

Waffle...

Truth. Absolute, 100% truth.

sassy wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

That's quite a leap from talking about renting in Colchester ...

It's not a leap at all, it's the whole picture that has emerged since the election, and will be emerging more on Wednesday, of how they want to take from the poor to feed the rich.  You just watch on Wednesday.

Well it is because you were talking about people who earned £30,000 - £40,000 before.

This Is what the lefties support...


http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/bob-crow-i-have-no-moral-duty-to-move-out-of-council-house-despite-receiving-sixfigure-salary-as-rmt-boss-8964238.html



Or if not... if you think people earning over a certain amount should no longer qualify for social housing... then you agree with the proposals in principle...!?


So where do you draw the line on earnings!!!???

Plus sassy... you cited a family on only £15,000 each but forgot to factor in that they would already be much better off through income tax rules than a single earner on £30,000, as each worker won't pay tax on first £10,000 a year anyway!!!



Plus whatever other benefits they may still get in tax credits, child benefit, other benefits etc... plus each child school place costs £6,000 a year... NHS costs, doctor, dentist etc...

So anyway, the issue is that "high earners" can get social housing but they will have to pay more in rent? The Independent calls this a cut in benefits. I didn't know that paying cheaper rent was a benefit as such.

Sassy's argument is that the definition of "high earner" is wrong, but the issue is surely that a group of people are being treated more favourably than others and have been for a long time - ie, those in council or social housing. They are the people who others call "vulnerable", but they're more cosseted than anyone else IMO.

Raggamuffin wrote:So anyway, the issue is that "high earners" can get social housing but they will have to pay more in rent? The Independent calls this a cut in benefits. I didn't know that paying cheaper rent was a benefit as such.

Sassy's argument is that the definition of "high earner" is wrong, but the issue is surely that a group of people are being treated more favourably than others and have been for a long time - ie, those in council or social housing. They are the people who others call "vulnerable", but they're more cosseted than anyone else IMO.

Nope, because when they talk about 'high earners' at £30,000 a year, when that can be a couple, and mostly is, they are not 'high earners' in the first place.   And after a few years subsidised housing begins to make a profit and the rent they are paying goes to the Council for the benefit of the people living in the area instead of into the pockets of private landlords.

sassy wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:So anyway, the issue is that "high earners" can get social housing but they will have to pay more in rent? The Independent calls this a cut in benefits. I didn't know that paying cheaper rent was a benefit as such.

Sassy's argument is that the definition of "high earner" is wrong, but the issue is surely that a group of people are being treated more favourably than others and have been for a long time - ie, those in council or social housing. They are the people who others call "vulnerable", but they're more cosseted than anyone else IMO.

Nope, because when they talk about 'high earners' at £30,000 a year, when that can be a couple, and mostly is, they are not 'high earners' in the first place.   And after a few years subsidised housing begins to make a profit and the rent they are paying goes to the Council for the benefit of the people living in the area instead of into the pockets of private landlords.

So you don't object to high earners paying more rent for social housing, you just object to the amount which is considered "high"?

A couple earning £15,000 each, for example, would take home around £1,100 per month each, so that's £2,200 between them.

A single person earning £30,000 would take home around £1,950 a month, so quite a difference.

However, I still think that's enough to live on if they paid rent of say £650 per month as per Sassy's Colchester scenario, and if they have children they'll get the usual benefits. If you factor in child care, it changes of course. Shouldn't the issue be childcare costs?

Raggamuffin wrote:

sassy wrote:

Nope, because when they talk about 'high earners' at £30,000 a year, when that can be a couple, and mostly is, they are not 'high earners' in the first place.   And after a few years subsidised housing begins to make a profit and the rent they are paying goes to the Council for the benefit of the people living in the area instead of into the pockets of private landlords.

So you don't object to high earners paying more rent for social housing, you just object to the amount which is considered "high"?

No, I consider that social housing should be run by the Councils and the Charities that are doing it now and Government should keep their sticky little fingers out. Plus, I was brought up in a time where social housing was normal, and it didn't matter how much you ended up earning, because it was regarded as your 'home', a strange concept for the grasping and greedy these days I know, and you were contributing to the public purse anyway by paying the rent, which meant the money could be used to build more housing. No-one looked down on anyone in social housing, people were glad to see other people happy and housed and having a stable base so that they could get on with their lives and do something with them, without the continuous worry that the roof over their head might go. If they were earning a lot, they got taxed more, so contributed to the public purse that way as well.

sassy wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

So you don't object to high earners paying more rent for social housing, you just object to the amount which is considered "high"?

No, I consider that social housing should be run by the Councils and the Charities that are doing it now and Government should keep their sticky little fingers out.   Plus, I was brought up in a time where social housing was normal, and it didn't matter how much you ended up earning, because it was regarded as your 'home', a strange concept for the grasping and greedy these days I know, and you were contributing to the public purse anyway by paying the rent, which meant the money could be used to build more housing.  No-one looked down on anyone in social housing, people were glad to see other people happy and housed and having a stable base so that they could get on with their lives and do something with them, without the continuous worry that the roof over their head might go.  If they were earning a lot, they got taxed more, so contributed to the public purse that way as well.

So what is your objection? The price of rent in the private sector? I agree it's too high - the rent for social housing seems more reasonable to me, but not everyone can get social housing. Would you not say then that those who can are treated more favourably than those who can't?

Unless they can build enough houses for every one to have social housing, or they cap rents to bring them to the same level, this will always be an issue.

Raggamuffin wrote:

sassy wrote:

No, I consider that social housing should be run by the Councils and the Charities that are doing it now and Government should keep their sticky little fingers out.   Plus, I was brought up in a time where social housing was normal, and it didn't matter how much you ended up earning, because it was regarded as your 'home', a strange concept for the grasping and greedy these days I know, and you were contributing to the public purse anyway by paying the rent, which meant the money could be used to build more housing.  No-one looked down on anyone in social housing, people were glad to see other people happy and housed and having a stable base so that they could get on with their lives and do something with them, without the continuous worry that the roof over their head might go.  If they were earning a lot, they got taxed more, so contributed to the public purse that way as well.

So what is your objection? The price of rent in the private sector? I agree it's too high - the rent for social housing seems more reasonable to me, but not everyone can get social housing. Would you not say then that those who can are treated more favourably than those who can't?

Unless they can build enough houses for every one to have social housing, or they cap rents to bring them to the same level, this will always be an issue.

I should have thought my objection was obvious. The Tories attack on ordinary people (again) by forcing up rents in the public sector for some, which in turn will allow landlords in the private sector to push up rents again. And yes, you can have social housing for those that want, it depends on the priorities of the government.

sassy wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

So what is your objection? The price of rent in the private sector? I agree it's too high - the rent for social housing seems more reasonable to me, but not everyone can get social housing. Would you not say then that those who can are treated more favourably than those who can't?

Unless they can build enough houses for every one to have social housing, or they cap rents to bring them to the same level, this will always be an issue.

I should have thought my objection was obvious.  The Tories attack on ordinary people (again) by forcing up rents in the public sector for some, which in turn will allow landlords in the private sector to push up rents again.   And yes, you can have social housing for those that want, it depends on the priorities of the government.

Your objection isn't really obvious. You started off with a large copy and paste, and made very little comment of your own.

Part of your argument seems to be that people "look down" on those in social housing. I certainly don't - I think they do very well - much better than those who are not.

How is social housing allocated anyway?

The issue of rent in the private sector is surely a separate issue. If rents go up, there will be more people claiming housing benefit, yes? That's not the way to go IMO. The real problem is house prices isn't it? Who is pushing those up?

You didn't notice Ben asking for more news stories to be put on?  That's what you do, C&P news to talk about.  And I thought is was obvious from my answers, not from the new report, what I thought.   And it is not that people 'look down' on others in social housing, it is that the Government are trying to make people 'look down' on those in social housing.  Another way to call people 'scroungers'.   Now, watching the pomp and circumstance of the royal christening reports this weekend, that's scrounging.

sassy wrote:You didn't notice Ben asking for more news stories to be put on?  That's what you do, C&P news to talk about.  And I thought is was obvious from my answers, not from the new report, what I though.   And it is not that people 'look down' on others in social housing, it is that the Government are trying to make people 'look down' on those in social housing.  Another way to call people 'scroungers'.   Now, watching the pomp and circumstance of the royal christening reports this weekend, that's scrounging.

News stories, yes. However, I'd like to see more of your own words so it's clear what exactly your stance is. Having said that, it's a difficult one because I have a few contradictory opinions on this issue. I think that housing costs are generally too high in this country, but I also think that those who pay lower rent in social housing are being treated more favourably than others. I don't see that the Government is trying to get anyone to look down on them - they're saying that those who earn more should pay more - a view which I would have though you would agree with really. The fact that you don't agree with their figures is neither her nor there really.

I don't take much notice of the new royals. Again, I have some rather conflicting views on the royal family, but I can't be doing with the fuss quite frankly.

Raggamuffin wrote:

sassy wrote:

I should have thought my objection was obvious.  The Tories attack on ordinary people (again) by forcing up rents in the public sector for some, which in turn will allow landlords in the private sector to push up rents again.   And yes, you can have social housing for those that want, it depends on the priorities of the government.

Your objection isn't really obvious. You started off with a large copy and paste, and made very little comment of your own.

Part of your argument seems to be that people "look down" on those in social housing. I certainly don't - I think they do very well - much better than those who are not.

How is social housing allocated anyway?

The issue of rent in the private sector is surely a separate issue. If rents go up, there will be more people claiming housing benefit, yes? That's not the way to go IMO. The real problem is house prices isn't it? Who is pushing those up?

Qualification for social housing
11. Section 160ZA(6) provides that housing authorities may only allocate accommodation to people who are defined as ‘qualifying persons’ and section 160ZA(7) gives them the
power to decide the classes of people who are, or are not, qualifying persons.  

12. The Government is of the view that, in deciding who qualifies or does not qualify for social housing, local authorities should ensure that they prioritise applicants who can
demonstrate a close association with their local area.  Social housing is a scarce resource, and the Government believes that it is appropriate, proportionate and in the public interest
to restrict access in this way, to ensure that, as far as possible, sufficient affordable housing is available for those amongst the local population who are on low incomes or
otherwise disadvantaged and who would find it particularly difficult to find a home on the open market.  
 
13. Some housing authorities have decided to include a residency requirement as part of their qualification criteria, requiring the applicant (or member
of the applicant’s household) to have lived within the authority’s district for a specified period of time in order to qualify for an allocation of social housing. The Secretary of State believes that including a residency requirement is appropriate and strongly encourages all housing authorities to adopt such an approach.
The Secretary of State believes that a reasonable period of residency would be at least two years.  

14. We are aware that in some parts of the country, housing authorities share a common allocation policy with their neighbours and may wish to adopt a broader residency test which would be met if an applicant lives in any of the partners’districts. Such an approach might be particularly appropriate where an established housing market area spans a
number of local authority districts, and could help promote labour mobility within a wider geographical area.

15. Housing authorities may wish to consider whether there is a need to adopt other qualification criteria alongs
ide a residency requirement to enable and ensure that applicants who are not currently resident in the district who
can still demonstrate a strong association to the local area are able to qualify. Examples of such criteria might include:
•   family association – for example, where the applicant has close family who live in the district and who have done so
for a minimum period of time  
6•   employment in the district – for example, where the applicant or member of their household is currently employed in the district and has worked there for a certain
number of years  

16.  Whatever qualification criteria for social housing authorities adopt, they will need to have regard to their duties under the Equality
Act 2010, as well as their duties under other relevant legislation such as s.225 of the Housing Act 2004.

17. Housing authorities are reminded of the desirability of operating a housing options approach (see paragraph 3.19 of the 2012 guidanc
e) as part of a move to a managed waiting list. In this way, people who have not
lived in the area long enough to qualify for social housing can be provided with advice and any necessary support to help them find appropriate alternative solution

https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/269035/131219_circular_for_pdf.pdf

Hope that helps

Thank you Korban. So basically, someone needs to be on a low income and have some kind of connection with the area. That could apply to an awful lot of people, depending on the definition of "low income". It would also leave a lot of people unable to get social housing and the cheap rent that comes with it.

Is there no discrimination against single people or couples without children and all that usual stuff?

I sometimes wonder how the wife and I manage to live quite well on £12,000 a year.

we eat well, run a car and help out my Daughter on a weekly basis. We do own our house with council tax at £ 1, 000, we don't have holidays,we don't smoke or gamble.

we were tought to look after our money, problem today is some people want big TVs, holidays abroad and all the other expensive stuff.

nicko wrote:I sometimes wonder how the wife and I manage to live quite well on £12,000 a year.

we eat well, run a car and help out my Daughter on a weekly basis.  We do own our house with council tax at £ 1, 000, we don't have holidays,we don't smoke or gamble.

we were tought to look after our money, problem today is some people want big TVs, holidays abroad and all the other expensive stuff.

Exactly Nicko. Those things used to be considered luxuries, and now they're "necessities". There are loads of people out there who are questioning all this, and saying that they work just to buy more "stuff", and do things they're not even that bothered about.

Mass immigration under the last labour govt is why costs of housing is so high.

You can show some people the facts and the truth and they have the intelligence to understand. Then again you have people like Tommy who like to stick to the party line and can't actually handle anything else.

Are you saying mass immigration didn't drive up costs of living...!?


Just face it sassy... your beloved labour govt fucked this country and we are still feeling the negative effects of this!!!



However I think the govt have come up with a very clever policy here, especially when you also consider another recent policy announcement where immigrants on visas must show earnings of at least £30k to qualify for chance of staying here... as we well know, many of these people will be working in areas where it is quite easy to declare much lower earnings than really getting to pay less tax and claim more benefits, as well as many of these will be living in social housing!!!


So to try to stay they will have to start being honest with their incomes, declaring over the £30k mark, then not only paying right taxes, losing benefits but also having to pay proper rents!!!

Tommy Monk wrote:Mass immigration under the last labour govt is why costs of housing is so high.

the fact that thatcher sold of housing stock and forbid councils from using the money gained to build more houses obviously had nothing to do with that did it tommy jeeze you suffer from leftitist every thing was the fault of labour nothing to do with Tory policy's closing the coal industry the steel industry selling of assets that where making a profit resulting in a huge increase in unemployment building power stations that could not use British coal so it had to be imported from china

she fundamentally changed the UK housing system These changes have had long reaching effects, reverberating around today's housing environment and which sowed the seeds of the 2008 financial crash.she systematically transferred subsidies from economically productive housebuilding to support mortgages and rents. extended right-to-buy council homes to tenants with generous discounts.then put entire communitys out of work

No nothing to do with that all labours fault the bastards!!
honestly Tommy your sheer lack of understanding of cause and affect is truly staggering

The Housing Act 1988 expanded private sector financial input into social housing development, and introduced assured tenancies and a higher rent regime. This left the housing benefit bill to take the strain, which swelled to five times its original size to almost £25bn a year today.

The sale of council property was a disgrace. First of all, there was a discount, and then the people who bought the house they'd been renting could sell it on later at a profit. It was all wrong IMO. They should at least have had to buy them at market rates.

Increased demand through mass immigration is the cause of rise in costs.



Why should some earning £30,000 and over have tax payer subsidised cheaper rents paid by others who don't...!?

Raggamuffin wrote:The sale of council property was a disgrace. First of all, there was a discount, and then the people who bought the house they'd been renting could sell it on later at a profit. It was all wrong IMO. They should at least have had to buy them at market rates.

yes you absolutely right the whole policy was a mistake from the get go and as i said left the doors wide open for what the banks got up to
talk about fixing the roof when the sun was shining she sold the roof and the walls and floor`s as well The Rw don`t what to admit that though there happy to lump all the blame on labour who because of that won the nexst 3 elections and left the country with a time bomb that exploded in 2008

Tommy Monk wrote:Increased demand through mass immigration is the cause of rise in costs.



Why should some earning £30,000 and over have tax payer subsidised cheaper rents paid by others who don't...!?

i know research isn`t something you do but you should give it a shot you never know you might actual learn something new ....who knows it could happen

korban dallas wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:The sale of council property was a disgrace. First of all, there was a discount, and then the people who bought the house they'd been renting could sell it on later at a profit. It was all wrong IMO. They should at least have had to buy them at market rates.

yes you absolutely right the whole policy was a mistake from the get go and as i said left the doors wide open for what the banks got up to
talk about fixing the roof when the sun was shining she sold the roof and the walls and floor`s as well The Rw don`t what to admit that though there happy to lump all the blame on labour who because of that won the nexst 3 elections and left the country with a time bomb that exploded in 2008

To me it was another example of how council tenants are treated more favourably than others. Can you imagine private landlords having to sell their house to the tenants at a discount on the grounds that they paid rent for years?

http://www.standard.co.uk/news/politics/labour-should-apologise-for-social-housing-failure-8932797.html

Raggamuffin wrote:

korban dallas wrote:
yes you absolutely right the whole policy was a mistake from the get go and as i said left the doors wide open for what the banks got up to
talk about fixing the roof when the sun was shining she sold the roof and the walls and floor`s as well The Rw don`t what to admit that though there happy to lump all the blame on labour who because of that won the nexst 3 elections and left the country with a time bomb that exploded in 2008

To me it was another example of how council tenants are treated more favourably than others. Can you imagine private landlords having to sell their house to the tenants at a discount on the grounds that they paid rent for years?

yet that's was the thatcher policy to encourage home ownership the RW don`t want to accept that they would just like to bleat on about labour who haven`t been in government for 7 years and dismiss any Tory culpability
its very like the USA RW who see Regan, thatchers parter in crime in the same sort of giddy light and selective view of history

korban dallas wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

To me it was another example of how council tenants are treated more favourably than others. Can you imagine private landlords having to sell their house to the tenants at a discount on the grounds that they paid rent for years?

yet that's was the thatcher policy to encourage home ownership the RW don`t want to accept that  they would just like to bleat on about labour who haven`t been in government for 7 years and dismiss any Tory culpability
its very like the USA RW who see Regan, thatchers parter in crime  in the same sort of giddy light and selective view of history

It seemed to me to be a rather "left wing" policy actually - ie, creating favourable conditions for those who are perceived to be "poorer" than others.

Did you read the standard link...!?



It doesn't really matter whether the people in a home either rent it or own it in regards to number of homes And population...



When you introduce a policy of massive immigration then that has direct effect of population numbers and on housing... pushing up housing costs and rents.



While also driving down wages...



The question on this thread is why should some earning £30k and above, be better off than others with subsidised housing costs...!?


Thought you lefties liked 'equality'...?

Tommy Monk wrote:
http://www.standard.co.uk/news/politics/labour-should-apologise-for-social-housing-failure-8932797.html

do you know why that was

http://www.insidehousing.co.uk/labours-legacy/6509704.article

I repeat...






It doesn't really matter whether the people in a home either rent it or own it in regards to number of homes And population...



When you introduce a policy of massive immigration then that has direct effect of population numbers and on housing... pushing up housing costs and rents.



While also driving down wages...

Tommy Monk wrote:I repeat...






It doesn't really matter whether the people in a home either rent it or own it in regards to number of homes And population...



When you introduce a policy of massive immigration then that has direct effect of population numbers and on housing... pushing up housing costs and rents.



While also driving down wages...

It doesn't really matter ? but of course it matters, context Tommy context some thing you do admittedly seem struggle with

All the "It doesn't really matter " comment proves is you see the point but don`t want to admit it

Context kd context... read the whole of what I said in that context...

Tommy Monk wrote:Context kd context... read the whole of what I said in that context...

i did Tommy did you read my link ?

Yes, most of it.


If you have a set number of homes for a set number of people, slowly building more as the population grows naturally, then you have enough for all... regardless of whether renting, buying, owning or owned by council etc...


WHen you then start letting in 300,000 extra people a year... You have a problem... a rise in demand and a shortfall in supply... basic economics dictates that this will increase costs...



Labour also built fuck all during their 13 years which has only compounded the problem. Check out the standard link to prove this.